Ninth Circuit: Sigal Chattah's Invalid US Attorney Appointment

• A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit has affirmed a district court ruling that Sigal Chattah's appointment as acting US Attorney is invalid.
• The Federal Vacancies Reform Act governs the appointment of acting officials, including US Attorneys, and requires automatic succession to run only to whoever was already first assistant when the vacancy arose.
• The court rejected arguments that newly confirmed AG Todd Blanche could delegate powers of the office to Chattah under a different statute.

The statute does not permit the executive to fill an existing vacancy by designating a new first assistant.

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit has unanimously affirmed a district court ruling that Sigal Chattah, the acting US Attorney for the District of Nevada, cannot lawfully supervise prosecutions due to her invalid appointment. The opinion was written by Judge Eric Miller, a Trump appointee, and joined by Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Sidney Thomas, a Clinton appointee, and District Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, another Trump appointee sitting by designation. This decision highlights the importance of carefully following statutory requirements for succession and appointment in situations where an acting US Attorney is appointed and then resigns, only to be reappointed through a different mechanism.

The Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA) governs the appointment of acting officials, including US Attorneys. According to the statute, automatic succession runs only to whoever was already first assistant when the vacancy arose, not to whomever the AG slots in later. In this case, Sue Fahami was the first assistant when the vacancy arose in January 2025, and her resignation did not trigger an automatic succession. The court also rejected the argument that newly confirmed AG Todd Blanche could delegate powers of the office to Chattah under a different statute.

This decision has significant implications for lawyers and policymakers, particularly in situations where an acting US Attorney is appointed and then resigns, only to be reappointed through a different mechanism. The ruling highlights the importance of carefully following statutory requirements for succession and appointment to ensure that appointments are valid and lawful. This decision also underscores the need for clarity and transparency in government appointments and the potential consequences of attempting to circumvent statutory requirements.

Lawyers should be aware of the implications of this ruling on the validity of appointments made by the US Attorney General, particularly in situations where an acting US Attorney is appointed and then resigns, only to be reappointed through a different mechanism. This decision highlights the importance of carefully following statutory requirements for succession and appointment.

Source: Original reporting via Even Trump's Own Judges Agree: Sigal Chattah Isn't A Real U.S. Attorney